Best WWII Eastern Front PC Games - Sims, Tactics, Strategy

[MengJiao]

Have to agree. Like "Wacht am Rhein," the Kursk offensive seemed an act of desperation more than anything else. It's hard to believe it had ever had a chance of succeeding. The Russians were well prepared for it -- there was no element of surprise (unlike the Bulge, interestingly). The fact that the Germans went through with it smacks of a military leadership that had run out of ideas and was hoping luck would pull them through. Guderian and Model (?) argued for calling the whole thing off.

  Weirdly enough, Hitler seems to have managed the whole Kursk thing well up to a point.  Sure the delay looks bad if you assume attacking earlier would have worked -- but even there Hitler was probably right to delay.  After all, a few months of not much happening on the Eastern Front was worth a lot to Germany at that point in itself.  After Kursk though, Hitler seems to have given up on anything other than defending on the Eastern Front -- the Panther-Wotan line order came out in August and envisioned a substantial withdrawal -- though of course that even that line was blown through in a few months as well.

[magnus]

 In answer to MR.

I said Caiden's was a good book, so is Gone with the Wind, but I wouldn't use it for studying the Civil war.

I think you didn't understand my post. It was about just Germany and it's Allies at war against the Soviet Union.

Historically, you are correct about the Soviet Union doing well until the Normandy landings.

I was talking about Germany not having a second front at all and 100+- divisions to throw into the fray.

The consensus was for a while that the Soviet Union would have won without any western allied help whatsoever.

I do not believe that. They could have, but I can see it going the other way also.

[Michael Dorosh]

I would also add to the list;

'Barbarossa' by Alan Clark,

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/alan-clark-was-not-wonderful-he-was-sleazy-and-cruel-1787343.html

I have a copy of his Barbarossa book, and it is not egregious, if memory serves, but Clark's First World War revisionism certainly was - it was he who fabricated the lie about "lions led by donkeys," including the quote that never existed. Better historians than Clark have been trying to demolish the myths he created, for decades, thanks to his witty invention.

Barbarossa has the advantage of being easy reading, but if the tabloids are correct about Clark being as "admirer of the Führer," one wonders how much he managed to fabricate in that one, too.

For straight nuts-and-bolts, Glantz is the way to go, though he certainly gets few style points.

A more unconventional route might be the two-part Hitler biography by Ian Kershaw. The books ("Hubris" and "Nemesis") are actually more of a Third Reich history than a straight biography, and the second volume may serve as a very high-level Ostfront overview.

The translation of Hitler's military conferences is also interesting, particularly the detailed footnotes, though they are fragmentary.

[magnus]

 Have you ever heard the supposed conversation between hitler and Mannerheim?

It is quite an eye opener if true.

[Gusington]

I have Hubris by Kershaw, waiting to be read. About to start reading his 'The End' about the fall of the Third Reich.

[JasonPratt]

Have you ever heard the supposed conversation between hitler and Mannerheim?

It is quite an eye opener if true.

Link?

[Pinetree]

Have you ever heard the supposed conversation between hitler and Mannerheim?

It is quite an eye opener if true.

Didn't Bruno Ganz, the actor who played Hitler in Downfall, repeatedly listen to this so he could the part right?

[GDS_Starfury]

http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/19880/transcript-of-a-recording-of-adolph-hitler-and-carl-mannerheim

[Blucher]

The Hitler and Mannerheim Recording in Finland, June 4, 1942 (Subtitles)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk

[MengJiao]

The consensus was for a while that the Soviet Union would have won without any western allied help whatsoever.

I do not believe that. They could have, but I can see it going the other way also.

  I think the Germans could have managed a stalemate at least against the USSR if England had surrendered in 1940, but given the blockade of Germany and more or less free supply flow into the USSR thanks to the Royal Navy and later the USA, coupled with Germany's rapidly collapsing industry and lack of basic  necessities for war such as copper and oil, as long as there was any pressure at all from the West, Germany was not going to even get a stalemate in the East.  But you have to read The Wages of Destruction to see how terminally bad off the
Germans were in industrial terms even before the war started.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/aug/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview16

[GDS_Starfury]

when playing East Front wargames its important to keep in mind what you can do that the Germans didnt.
you have a unified command structure, a unified industrial base and  hopefully a single strategic vision.  under those conditions its fairly easy for Germany to get quick victories.  historically none of that existed.

[magnus]

 +1 GDS

Sorry for not giving a link. I was also running late so I didn't add why exactly I thought it was relevant.

During the conversation, he says something to the effect " if I had known, they had 10,000 tanks I would never have invaded".

I have seen it written several times that the planning officers did say that the SU did have that many tanks.

[MengJiao]

+1 GDS

Sorry for not giving a link. I was also running late so I didn't add why exactly I thought it was relevant.

During the conversation, he says something to the effect " if I had known, they had 10,000 tanks I would never have invaded".

I have seen it written several times that the planning officers did say that the SU did have that many tanks.

   I looked at the site with the transcript.  It claims Finland won the Winter War, which seems odd.  I think they surrendered more territory than was in the original demand.

   Also Hitler says if he had known the Russians had 35,000 tanks, he would not have attacked them.  Then he maunders on until somebody faints from boredom and shuts off the recording.

   When did the Russians have 35,000 tanks?

[GDS_Starfury]

they had gobs of those little fuckers but not a lot of T-34s and Kv's when Germany invaded.

[MengJiao]

they had gobs of those little fuckers but not a lot of T-34s and Kv's when Germany invaded.

  Of course by the time Hitler was talking in 1942, the Germans could easily have knocked out 35,000 -- say 20,000 in 1941 and another 15,000 in 1942.  Total Russian AFV production would have been say 20,000 leaving them with around 10,000 and climbing fast in late 1942